The choice likely signals a return to hostility toward applications for Heritage funds from Ojibwe bands, given some members' negative attitudes toward the bands' prohibition of wolf hunting. Gray wolves hold a special place in the bands' cultural belief systems, which position the animals as the indigenous people's brethren.

Many non-native hunters resented not being allowed to shoot wolves on native land. For the moment, it's an abstract discussion, since a federal judge's decision to close the hunt in the upper Great Lakes region.

Anderson most recently made his opinion clear at the December 11, 2014 meeting when he moved to strike funding that would allow the White Earth Band to acquire land along the Wild Rice River and its tributaries for wildlife habitat protection.

Representative Steve Green (R-Fosston) is an enrolled member of the White Earth Band of Ojibwe, or Gaa-waabaabiganikaag Anishinaabeg, but he's having nothing to do with a proposal the nation submitted to the Outdoor Heritage Fund.

The council that reviews and approves proposals included the nation's request in its recommendations to the Minnesota House Environment and Natural Resources Policy and Finance Committee today, but an amendment Green submitted removing the tribe's request passed on a roll call vote.

DFL Representative David Dill joined the Republican majority on the committee in voting down the proposal. . . .

Green's objections were not explicitly linked to the wolf hunt, but rather to a belief that the tribe doesn't pay enough taxes. (This claim had been vetted and rejected by the council, as one member notes in the December 11, 2014 tape).

The Legacy funding proposal came up in the House Legacy committee Monday, and an amendment was on the agenda to restore the funding, but the audio from that meeting has yet to be posted.

Bluestem believes that the election of Anderson as chair, was well as Speaker Daudt's appointment of Representative Dave Dill (DFL-Crane Lake) to replace South St. Paul DFLer Rick Hansen on the Council, signals a step backward for funding native projects. The Pioneer Press's Dave Orrick reported in New Lessard-Sams outdoor council set, and ready to disburse $100M:

Rep. David Dill, DFL-Crane Lake: Dill comes to the council amid a predictable fracas of finger-pointing. Daudt appointed Dill instead of Rep. Rick Hansen, DFL-South St. Paul. Hansen and House Minority Leader Paul Thissen, DFL-Minneapolis, both objected publicly, accusing Daudt reneging on a pledge of bi-partisan cooperation. Daudt hasn't responded, but the deed is done. Some areas to watch for possible contrast between Dill and Hansen: Whether Indian projects should be funded, how invasive species work should be viewed by the council, and whether any money from the Outdoor Heritage Fund should be spent to reimburse local governments for lost property tax revenues when land is purchased for protection. More on that below. Daudt also re-appointed Rep. Denny McNamara, R-Hastings.

We'll see how this cultural conflict works out.

Photo: Canoes and wild rice. The White Earth project will also help preserve water quality necessary for wild rice.

If you appreciate Bluestem's posts, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:

Mar 12, 2015

A young organizer at Clean Up the River Environment (CURE) has sent us this notice of a meeting with Minnesota Senate District 17 lawmakers in Willmar on Saturday, March 14:

Please join CURE and other conservationists for a District 17 Legislator Meeting with your elected officials, Senator Lyle Koenen, Representative Tim Miller and Representative Dave Baker. They have all confirmed with CURE that they will be able to join us and listen to our concerns about conservation during this meeting in Willmar.

Who: A face-to-face meeting with three of your elected officials, Senator Lyle Koenen, Representative Tim Miller and Representative Dave Baker.

What: A face-to-face meeting with three of your elected officials, Senator Lyle Koenen, Representative Tim Miller and Representative Dave Baker

Why: This meeting will provide you with an opportunity to meet face-to-face with your elected officials to express your concerns and support for issues relating to agriculture, the environment, renewable energy and everything conservation related.

We're hoping that you will be able to join us and will let other concerned citizens know about this opportunity for their voices to be heard.

Share widely with your networks in the region. If you plan on attending, please let me [Kristian Nyberg CURE Energy Program Coordinator] know by simply responding to this email, or by calling the CURE office at 1-877-269-2873.

CURE is a grassroots, rural-based environmental group which works on clean water, clean energy and healthy soil in the Upper Minnesota River Valley.

Photo: A town hall in West Central Minnesota earlier this year.

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:

[Beth] Proctor, a Minnesota State University professor who in recent years has sought to strengthen regulations of a frac sand mining operation just noth of Mankato, asked about mining regulations. Bills under discussion at the Capitol would require legislative approval of water-protection standards. These standards have been controversial because they add to the cost of some Iron Range mining projects.

Considine sits on a mining and outdoor recreation committee and said the political reality there is that nine of its members are Republicans and four of its six Democrats are from the Iron Range.

"Quite frankly, there's a race to the microphone to tell mining companies how great they are when they're doing their pitches," he said. He acknowledged that Polymet, which is trying to build a large copper mine, is "trying to go in the right direction" regarding water quality.

But he was skeptical that a sulfide mining operation — where the ore is extracted from sulfide, which can create acid when exposed to air and water — can ever be environmentally safe.

That sort of statement might build resentment among his Range peers to the point that they might come down with chronic Range amnesia around the freshman DFLer. Let's hope they remember more than just their grudges.

Linehan reports:

Johnson said he opposes requiring legislative approval of water quality standards, which he called an attempt to "politicize water quality standards in the land of 10,000 lakes."

"Imagine the political pressures associated with (approving a water quality standard)," he said. "We’re in flush times now. It might be easier to do that now. We won’t always be in flush times."

Phosphorus is a pollutant that spurs algae growth and can turn sky-blue water into pea-soup green. Currently, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) takes the lead in determining water-quality standards and issuing permits for wastewater plants. . . .

The controversial bills, written by the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, would require legislative approval of water quality standards as well as an added layer of review.

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:

A letter from a powerful lobbying association demanding an apology was delivered to Rep. Rick Hansen (DFL-South St. Paul) after he asked pointed questions after it was revealed in committee on Thursday, February 26 that the group wrote wrote HF616.

Legislators, it seems, may not ask questions of lobbyists representing interests brought to the Minnesota legislature. But legislators (who are quite comfortable letting special interests write the bills) may grandstand about how scientists and civil servants are incapable of setting regulatory standards.

Who will those comfortable legislators turn to for advice, if not an agency's technical and scientific staff? Any guesses?

Regulatory capture is a theory associated with George Stigler, a Nobel laureate economist. It is the process by which regulatory agencies eventually come to be dominated by the very industries they were charged with regulating. Regulatory capture happens when a regulatory agency, formed to act in the public's interest, eventually acts in ways that benefit the industry it is supposed to be regulating, rather than the public.

Public interest agencies that come to be controlled by the industry they were charged with regulating are known as captured agencies. Regulatory capture is an example of gamekeeper turns poacher; in other words, the interests the agency set out to protect are ignored in favor of the regulated industry's interests.

Bluestem doesn't think that the MPCA is captured yet, but bills like HF 616, which a lobbyist for the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities admitted was written by the CGMC on behalf of those who face new standards for phosphorous in treated waste water, edges us closer to this normal and casual political corruption.

The EPA has asked states to develop a standard for cities and other "point" sources to meet--though as John Persell has pointed out on March 3, many cities in Minnesota were ahead of the curve. He cited the example of Bemidji, which had done the right thing for its area lakes, which feed into the Mississippi River; removing the nutrients from its water removed them for those downstream.

The Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities demands an apology from a east metro lawmaker after he appeared critical of the group last week during a House committee hearing.

However, Democratic-Farmer-Labor Rep. Rick Hansen of South St. Paul said Wednesday that what the coalition considered harsh questioning was part of his ongoing attempt to change the Capitol culture of giving special interest groups power.

A coalition lobbyist was testifying about an environmental bill affecting cities when Hansen asked if the group wrote the bill. Lobbyist Elizabeth Wefel said the coalition did.

Then Hansen turned to about campaign contributions.

"Is the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities one of the largest contributors to campaigns in the state of Minnesota?" he asked.

Wefel responded that cities cannot donate to campaigns or have political action committees that give to campaigns. . . .

There's another question as well that Hansen didn't raise. How much did the cities that are members of the CGMC pay for lobbying activities? In this case, that would involve writing the bill.

Fortunately, we don't have guess about this stuff, at least not for years past, for the office of the State Auditor (a constitutional office not to be confused with the Office of the Legislative Auditor) is charged with reviewing how much cities spend on lobbying services.

In addition to the $3.9 million paid directly to staff and contract lobbyists, local governments paid dues of $10,967,446 in 2013 to local government associations that also represented their interests before legislative, administrative, or other governmental bodies. . . . These associations spent $4,213,414 on lobbyists and lobbying in 2013. This represents an increase of 8.6 percent over 2012. Of the $4.2 million spent on lobbyists and lobbying by these associations, $3,837,539 was funded exclusively through dues. This represents an increase of 9.4 percent over the $3,509,101 in association dues that were spent on lobbying activities in 2012 (pg. 5).

And the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities? On page 11, under the headline Associations With the Highest Expenditures on Lobbying Services, we learn that the Coalition was the biggest spender, clocking in at $835,674.

Under Compensation Paid to Firms or Staff for Lobbying Services on page 12, the state auditor's report states:

In 2013, Minnesota local governments or associations of local governments paid ten firms or employee lobbyists $100,000 or more to provide lobbying services. . . . The ten firms or employees receiving $100,000 or more in payments from lo cal governments or associations of local governments are listed below in Table 3.

Leading the pack is Flaherty & Hood, P.A. at $894,740; the next lobby shop, Messerli & Kramer, received less than half that at $442,187.

Essentially, the hired guns of the cities--which are asking that water quality standards be set by the legislators--wrote the bill for the legislators. We don't imagine they'll stop paying those lobbyists when it comes time to set those standards.

In the meeting, Hansen said little about his motives for the line of questioning, other than: "Money is everywhere in our political system." . . .

Hansen told Forum News Service that he has begun asking questions like he did in McNamara's environmental committee because the Capitol culture has turned too much to favoring special interest groups.

Hansen, who said he will not apologize to the coalition, said: "It's money that is pollution in the system."

While lobbyists traditionally write bills and ask legislators to sponsor them, Hansen said the practice is getting worse and special interests, not legislators, appear to be taking the lead on promoting bills in committees. . . .

Same bill, new day

In the March 3rd continuation of the hearing on the same bill, we see an example of a legislator who's perfectly comfortable with yanking standard-setting from an agency's technical and scientific staff and turning into over to the lobbyist-led lawmakers.

In response to testimony, Rep. Tony Cornish, R-Vernon Center, went on a rant against the watershed experts sitting across from him, who had testified earlier. While he claimed at the start it would be “respectful” it turned out to just be threatening:

I was offended by the arrogance of the bureaucrats that testified here today in saying that we weren’t qualified to make decisions.

You wouldn’t even exist if it wasn’t for the Legislature. Or your funding, your pensions, or your planning, your operations. We gave you rule-making authority, of which many of us regret. And the reason we’re here today, and we have some of these bills, is because of this arrogance. And instead of standing between the EPA and the farmer, and the businessman, and the miner, and the power companies, what you people, it seems like, are doing is worshiping the shrine of the EPA, and saying ‘There’s nothing we can do.’ It’s just offensive.

Like Rep. Persell, Kayser takes exception to Cornish's grandstanding:

Contrary to what Rep. Cornish believes, part-time elected legislators that may or may not have any idea of what phosphorus even is are most certainly not more qualified than the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to regulate pollution. Also contrary to what Cornish believes, the primary directive of the MPCA and the watershed groups is to combat pollution, not combat the Environmental Protection Agency.

But with the help of folks like Cornish, settled in the mould of his heavily thickened comfort with all this, the regulated and their paid lobbyists can set those standards.

Rarely has a Minnesota House committee hearing come to such a colorful close as it did on Tuesday. After listening to back-and-forth testimony on legislation that would require legislative approval of new water-protection standards for Minnesota lakes and rivers, Rep. John Persell accurately summed up a complicated issue with one epic, uniquely Minnesota utterance:

“Bullhockey.”

Noting that many Minnesota cities have done their part to meet new phosphorus-reduction requirements from wastewater treatment plants, Persell, DFL-Bemidji, said this is a fairness issue, that other cities don’t want to do their part.

According to testimony at the House Environment and Natural Resources Policy and Finance Committee hearing, the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities played a key role in writing the legislation. Phosphorus is a pollutant that spurs algae growth and can turn sky-blue water into pea-soup green. Currently, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) takes the lead in determining water-quality standards and issuing permits for wastewater plants. . . .

H.F. 616 and 617, carried by Rep. Dan Fabian, R-Roseau, calls for legislative signoff on new water-quality standards, which are essentially a goal set for how much of a pollutant a water body can handle and remain healthy. His second bill would require additional scientific and cost reviews of MPCA protections.

Legislation has also been introduced in the House and Senate to prevent enforcement of the state’s longtime standard for sulfate. This pollutant is linked to mining and wastewater discharge and can harm natural stands of wild rice. Controversy over the state’s sulfate standard has been swirling for several years as its scientific footing undergoes review. Enforcing the standard will add to the price tag of proposed Iron Range mining projects and will be costly for current operations to adhere to.

Industry and special interests have lent these pieces of legislation broad support. Legislators from mining areas, as well as outstate districts with small sewage plants in need of updates, are also pushing this. And that’s the problem. Water protection isn’t merely an economic development issue.

But giving veto power to legislators over new safeguards would boil the debate down to that — a result that would not serve Minnesotans and future generations well. ...

Read the rest at the Star Tribune.

Photo: Representative Rick Hansen (DFL-South St. Paul).

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:

Mar 03, 2015

During Tuesday's Minnesota House Environmental and Natural Resources Policy and Finance Committee hearing of HF616 and HF617, which would require the Minnesota legislature to set water quality standards and add a layer of independent peer review, Rep. Tony Cornish (R-Vernon Center) did a little grandstanding about bureaucrats and science.

It's not particularly worth noting, since as Rep. Hansen (DFL-South St. Paul) said, the substance of the performance was merely the same old tired cliches.

Was it his marvelous backwoods accent? The water treatment map he deftly waved in the air? Bluestem believes it's the unique blend on content and diction that only Persell brings to the table. A biologist by training, Persell worked for years as the water quality specialist and environmental policy analyst for the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe.

See if you don't agree that when this guy talks about water quality standards, we ought to listen:

Thank you Mr. Chair. I just wanted to say it: Representative Cornish, you kinda stole my thunder a little bit. You're offended, and I'm offended too, but not for the same reason.

The MPCA doesn't bother me, although we don't get along on everything.

But I'm offended. You look at this map and most of the sewer treatment plants in Minnesota did the right thing. We did the right thing in Bemidji 30 years ago. Thirty years ago! And instituted phosphorus reductions so we could save Lake Bemidji, Big Wolf Lake, Andrusia, Cass, Winnibigoshish, on down the Mississippi River, through all of them, so we could send you all down here cleaner water.

Cleaner water! And now a few sewer treatment plants, a few cities want to say, oh no, not me, we don't want to do this.

Well bull hockey. That ain't right! That ain't fair! That ain't the we do things in Minnesota!

I just want to say I support what you're trying to do MPCA, and let's do the right thing here and support standards the way they're supposed to be developed.

Mar 02, 2015

The expansion into Northwest Central Minnesota by a major player in the state's pork industry has prompted conflict in Todd County--and the introduction of bills to limit citizens' ability to file nuisance lawsuits against ag operations.

HF0582, introduced by Minnesota House Ag Policy Chair Paul Anderson (R-Starbuck), will be heard in his committee on Wednesday; the committee hearing starts at 10:15 a.m., but has posted notice that it will reconvene at 6:00 p.m. if more time is needed to hearing testimony and committee members' questions about the bill and the two other measures scheduled for consideration.

Bluestem Prairie asked The Uptake to excerpt the testimony for and against the bill. It's likely that many of the same individuals will testify before the House committee on Wednesday:

Senator Sparks' brief presentation of the bill opened the hearing, led by committee vice-chair Matt Schmit (DFL-Red Wing). Sparks turned the discussion of the bill over to pork industry representatives or their legal counsel.

Jack Perry, a lawyer and lobbyist with the Briggs and Morgan law firm, opened the discussion a consideration of four points about the bill, including the fact that nuisance lawsuits are being filed against hog farmers by plaintiff groups joined by national organizations like the Human Society of the United States; according to court records, Perry has been involved representing the defendants in these lawsuits, as he alludes in his testimony. Perry said that the intent of the bill was to clarify the laws, not to change them.

Next, Protein Sources partner Paul FitzSimmons, discussed his extended family's hog farms, which employ 280 people. He said that the firm is committed to respecting communities and the environment, while delivering a product at a price that everyone can afford. FitzSimmons notes that the livestock industry needs certainty.

Sources at the state capitol tell us that lobbyists with Jerich Associates are talking up the legislation to lawmakers. According to association data on file with the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board, Michael, Ronald and Valerie Jerich are the registered lobbyists for Minnesotans for Environmental Equality. The filing lists "Paul Fitz Simmons, Partner, 503 Silver St E PO Box 308, Mapleton, MN 56065" as the contact information.

The organization, which does not have a website, is not registered with the Minnesota Secretary of State's office nor with the Attorney General's charity division; the address is that of Protein Sources.

FitzSimmons sees the changes--which he says really aren't a fix for the current law--but measures that will protect producers who have gone through the permitting process and are thus presumed to be in compliance with state standards. (FitzSimmons is a party to a lawsuit related to a hog farm in Todd County; we'll embed the nuisance complaint below).

Next, David Preisler, Executive Director of the Minnesota Pork Board, took "a moment to talk about what's really at risk." Minnesota agriculture generates $21 billion in income, 40 percent of which is from livestock. Nuisance risks make the state less attractive to livestock producers.

Carlson's position is the bill represents not a clarification of the law, but a substantial departure from the law. He explains what a nuisance is and that current law is designed so that property owners can abate the nuisance so they can enjoy their property. He notes that the bill would change two aspects of the law: that related to public nuisances, wherein government agencies get involved and private nuisances.

MAJ members are mostly concerned with private nuisances, and Carlson pointed out that an activity need not be illegal to be a private nuisance that can interfere with the enjoyment of property or injury one's health. As Minnesota doesn't have an odor standard, he said, being in compliance is great, but it's not an odor standard.

Carlson's final observation was that at four points, the language of the bill affects cases that are currently in litigation-- indeed, "pending litigation" is mentioned in the bill.

"That is clearly a departure from where this legislature has been, to go in and apply the law to a case that is currently being litigated. We have serious concerns with that," Carlson said, "not just in this bill but as a precedential issue as well."

The final person to testify was Aimee Goodwin, a rural Todd County property owner who has had to move to Douglas County because of the smell of the sow barn that FitzSimmons developed along with Webster, Iowa based Gourley Farms. Her testimony around the 19 minute marker on the video above. It's also close to the injuries enumerated in the lawsuits embedded below.

What led to this situation, where a party involved in lawsuits seeks to have the laws "clarified"or "changed"?

Sow facilities have sought to locate in Todd County because there is a good separation between hog barns, Stieber said. The facilities are more isolated for the production of piglets. . . .

The notion of locating hog farrowing and production barns in the region is frequently raised by reports about the facility. In 2012, Fox 9 News reporter Trish Van Pilsum reported in Investigators: Hog haven on the horizon?:

A longtime family hog operation from Webster City, Iowa, hopes to build that barn. It would be run by the Gourley brothers, who have a clean environmental record in Iowa and have grown from a single family farm to a multi-million dollar operation that produces 60,000 pigs a year.

They want to move sows and their newborns to the rural Minnesota bean field because the location is isolated. Currently, their sow barn in Iowa has so many hog neighbors in close proximity that their animals kept getting sick. The pigs get fevers and sometimes, litters are lost when the baby pigs fall ill; however, it is important to note that there is no risk to humans from the pig virus.

During the planning stages of the sow production facility, the brothers started working with Protein Sources LLP, a Mapleton, Minn.,-based firm that provides management and accounting services for farrowing and finishing hog operations in the Upper Midwest, mainly in Minnesota and Iowa. Protein Sources was started in 1999 by Bron Scherer, formerly of Amboy, Minn., and the FitzSimmons brothers: Pat, John, Paul, Richard and Bill of Good Thunder, Minn. Gene Gourley and Mark FitzSimmons, the youngest of the Good Thunder brothers, were familiar with each other from working together at Swine Graphics Enterprises LP in Webster City, Iowa. . . .

They also took another step in reducing risk of disease by where they built it.

The Webster City, Iowa, area has a large hog population, and the Gourleys have had a hard time keeping porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) virus under control at their Iowa farms. So when they were looking to build this new facility, they wanted to find a location that would have lower swine disease pressure.

According to statistics from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service in cooperation with the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, the Gourleys’ home county of Hamilton had 520,000 total hogs at the end of 2008. By contrast, Todd County, Minn., had 24,000 hogs and pigs in 2012 according to the Minnesota Agricultural Statistics report.

“We looked at other states,” Gene Gourley says, “but then we had to look at who would be the manager of the site, because we weren’t going to be traveling to do that” for disease and distance reasons. “We looked at property that provided isolation from other pigs, and the fewest neighbors as possible.” FitzSimmonses had property in Todd County, and they also have a boar stud in that area. The existing relationship between Gene Gourley and Mark FitzSimmons and the property in the area made for a beneficial working relationship for both parties. “Another reason we went with the FitzSimmonses,” Gene Gourley says, “is that we feel they have the same values that our family has.”

The Gourley Premium Pork (GPP) now owns the land, the structure and the hogs, and Protein Sources manages the facility. So far, knock on wood (if you can find some) they have managed to keep disease out of the Todd County facility.

Gene Gourley says the barn has been set up to be filtered for disease concerns, but as of yet the barn has not been equipped to do so. He says filter installation would cost about $1.5 million, “and we could break with PRRS every 10 years and the cost of the install and the added energy costs would have eaten that up.”

A good rodent control program is essential with a biofilter. Mice and rats burrow through the warm media during the cold winter months causing channeling and poor treatment. Rabbits, woodchucks, and badgers have been suspected of burrowing through and nesting in biofilters. Fortunately, most livestock and poultry operations currently have a good rodent control program and will require limited if any modifications. Costs of professional rodent control is approximately $400 per year for a typical animal production operation.

That's in 2004 dollars, and given the size of the farrowing operation, Bluestem suspects that the cost of rodent control at the facility might cost more than $400.

Neighbors Grow Concerned--Then Sue

While FitzSimmons' comment at the end of the video, "It's going to work well for the industry," certainly speaks accurately to the structural and design integrity of the Well Concrete structure, his hopes for the building being perceived in an entirely positive light by its neighbors have not come to pass.

I am writing to address the issue of the swine barn that is going in down the road from my home.

When I first heard about it, I was mostly heartbroken at what this meant for our wonderful country neighborhood. It’s a beautiful part of Todd County, where the people are friendly and the wildlife is plenty. One of my favorite things to do is sit out on my front porch in the spring and listen to the chorus of the frogs that reside in Silver Creek, just over the hill from my home. Heartache turned to a sick stomach at the thought of what the smell of 2,000 plus pigs would do to beautiful nights.

If I could stop it, I would, and I’d be a liar if I told you I haven’t tried. My interest is personal, of course. But this is not an issue that should just be the problem of those who live nearby. This is an issue for the entire surrounding area; anyone who loves nature; anyone who cares about our environment. This facility is going to be built at the top of the valley where we live and though there is no water running on the actual property, the Long Prairie River runs adjacent to it, just a short three miles away. Silver Creek is less than a mile away.

I have done a lot of research on these massive operations. I could fill this entire newspaper with the horror stories I have come across in my studies. But what I want to focus on today is what this may do or has the potential to do to our environment.

There is the song and dance of “ there are very strict state laws and restrictions for these operations to make sure that they are safe for everyone.” And that’s true; there are. But when it comes right down to it, no one can guarantee any of that. The real bottom line is, these massive hog barn operations are filthy and have even been referred to as one of the worst environmental pollutants that there is.

So here is the short version of this situation: Any polluted water will run right down our valley. It will easily travel across our neighbor’s property onto ours and only have a short trip from here into the creek. From there, with nothing to stop it, it will be dumped into the Long Prairie River and go anywhere it sees fit to travel along its way. That’s not all. Because one pig makes approximately three gallons of manure a day, the owners need to have contracted with the surrounding landowners an agreement to be able to spread the manure. Over time and being so close to the water, it is possible for the ground to become oversaturated and the water can be polluted that way. . . .

Sources at the capitol have told Bluestem that lawmakers are being told that Goodwin is the only one to ever have objected about the facility, but the public record presents a different picture.

Further information. Amy[sic] Goodwin asked that the Board acknowledge a petition that had been submitted to this meeting addressed to the Todd County Board of Commissioners . Jim read the petition signed by 192 persons –

“We the tax payers and land owners of Leslie Township and Todd County and others who are affected by this operation are signing our names to this petition and sharing it with you so that there is no doubt where we stand on the issue of the proposed Gourley Brothers swine facility in Leslie Township. Our concerns are many–environmental, water contamination, air quality, pollution, health and disease and property value just to name a few. We ask, if you have any influence or power to come to the aid of the people you represent in helping us to stop this, that you will.

The zoning board recommended the permit on a 3-2 vote and included a biofilter as a condition for it. The county board would approve the permit and remove the requirement for a biofilter.

The decision was not the end of the local objections; instead, the conflict escalated. On November 26, 2012, Goodwin , her spouse, other area residents and "Citizens Concerned for Todd County Health and Welfare" filed 77-CV-12-1241 a complaint against the county and those commissioners who voted for the CUP. The cased was closed administratively on December 2, 2012.

County Attorney Chuck Rasmussen said on Dec. 18 that the opponents of the Gourley Bros. hog farm under construction in Leslie Township have filed suit against the county again, this time in the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

Rasmussen said in a telephone interview that the law firm of Iverson Reuvers has been retained by the county’s insurance carrier, Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust (MCIT), to defend the county in the civil lawsuit.

He said that the plaintiffs, Russell Anderson et al, had asked the Court of Appeals for a Writ of Certiorari – a request to accept the suit.

n the civil lawsuit against the county, filed on behalf of Russell Anderson, Corey and Aimee Goodwin, Joe and Iona Wolbeck and Citizens Concerned for Todd County Health and Welfare, by attorney Douglas C. Grawe of Grawe Law, PLLC, Eagan, Minnesota, the plaintiffs allege that commissioners violated the Minnesota Open Meeting Law in two ways: (1) by discussing the hog farm at the Oct. 2 public board meeting, and (2) by discussing the hog farm at the Oct. 30 and 31 strategic planning meetings, which the plaintiffs allege did not meet the requirements of the Minnesota open meeting law.

The civil lawsuit also alleges that county Soil and Water Conservation and Development Division (SWCDD) staff (1) did not correctly carry out computer modeling of the potential hydrogen sulfide levels that could be present in the air of Leslie Township when the hog farrowing facility begins operation, and (2) did not require the facility to place its proposed water well 200 feet from the facility.

The lawsuit asks that the court void the CUP and not allow the land in question to be used for a hog farrowing facility.

The lawsuit was first filed in the Seventh Judicial District Court in Long Prairie on Nov. 28. The court file number is 77CV- 121241. It was later withdrawn. The suit was refiled with the Court of Appeals last week.

Neighbors trying to stop a large hog feedlot from being built in central Minnesota are now challenging the state's decision to let the operation draw millions of gallons of groundwater.

The state Department of Natural Resources hasn't done enough to ensure the farm's groundwater demands won't damage nearby Lake Osakis and other area water supplies, said Amanda Prutzman, an attorney for the neighbors.

The Humane Society of the United States has joined neighbors in asking an appeals court to intervene. The animal welfare group says the state Department of Natural Resources erred in issuing the Gourley Brothers farm in Todd County a permit to draw up to 8 million gallons of groundwater per year to water livestock.

Groundwater use has drawn more scrutiny in certain areas of the state in recent years as hydrologists have shown a link between groundwater pumping and water levels in lakes and wetlands. The Todd County case, filed last week, does not cite evidence that groundwater withdrawals have damaged local water supplies.

The DNR, however, didn't meet its legal obligations when it issued the permit, said Humane Society attorney Peter Brandt. "It did not consider the impacts of allowing this facility to go in there and withdraw more than 10,000 gallons of water per day," he said. . . .

It's at this point that the bugaboo of Minnesota's livestock producers industry got involved with the dispute.

At the Dec. 17 county board meeting, about 30 citizens crowded into the commissioners’ room – some to criticize Board Chair Commissioner Randy Neumann, and some to praise him.

The citizens were there either as members of the Livestock Advisory Council (LAC) or as members of the Todd County Concerned Citizens (TCCC)– two groups with different purposes and agendas. . . .

TCCC member Nancy Judd spoke on behalf of what she described as “many concerned citizens” to thank Neumann for listening to the citizens of Todd County, showing leadership, and proving “that an Administrator is not necessary to the running of the county.”

Judd presented Neumann with a plaque in recognition of what the TCCC sees as his leadership and recognition of citizens’ concerns during his term as chair of the county board.

The court will decide the fate of the nuisance complaint, but Bluestem hopes this background on the history of the conflict that's led one side to seek legislative relief for active case is helpful for those who might wonder what's up.

But we're left with a couple of reflections. First, that the cost of maintaining a rat-free biofilter might have been less expensive for FitzSimmons than litigation and lobbying.

Second, Joel Carlson's warning about changing a law --and applying that law to active litigation--suggests that this reaction to the lawsuit isn't well thought out.

Finally, changing law because one doesn't like the perceived motives of one of the parties in a lawsuit strikes us as an alarming idea. Should labor unions be given special protection against lawsuits brought by the National Right to Work Committee? Should "date" sites be protected against those organizations that object to sex trafficking? What of the citizens' right to redress in the courts from private nuisances?

Photo: Healthy piglets and sows in the Todd County farrowing barn, via National Hog Farmers.

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:

The LSOHC recommends spending more than a $100 million in Legacy funds to protect, restore and enhance prairies, wetlands, forests and fish, game and wildlife habitat each year. Rep. Hansen was an original co-author of the Legacy Amendment. He has served on the original council from 2008-2011 and again from 2013 until now. He was the chief author of Outdoor Heritage Fund bill last session, which passed 90 to 39 on a bipartisan basis.

Rep. Hansen was also removed from the council the last time Republicans were in the majority (2011-2012) by then Speaker Kurt Zellers. Rep. Hansen, an avid hunter and angler who owns a family farm with conservation practices, has been one of the few consistent voices asking tough questions of groups vying for the Legacy funds.

Rep. Hansen released the following statement:

“I’m disappointed to have been replaced again. As a suburban legislator with a rural background, I brought a science and practical habitat background to the table. I always worked to ensure these public projects got the proper vetting they require. We need to fully examine every proposal to make sure it is sound. Some special interests do not like that. However, I took this public responsibility seriously and am proud of my service on the council.”

“I look forward to protecting the outdoors, clean water and the public purse at the Legislature during the next two years. Setbacks occur, but we must move ahead and serve in other ways.”

Photo: Representative Rick Hansen (DFL-South St. Paul).

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:

Committee Chair Denny McNamara (R-Hastings) moved that the bill be considered for possible consideration for inclusion in a larger bill, while reserving the possibility of moving HF1000 forward on its own.

The committee adjourned after nearly two hours and will resume tomorrow at 8:15 a.m., although tomorrow's meeting, which will consistent of only member's questions and comments, will not be livestreamed.

Here's the video. Melin presents, followed by supportive statements from business and industry groups. Around the 48:50 minute mark, Paula Maccabee of Water Legacy led off the opposition testimony given by environmental groups and members of Anishinaabekwe (Ojibwe) bands. Wild rice lays an important part in indigenous culture and believe.

From this morning's post

Written by Hibbing Democrat Carly Melin, the bill would prohibit applying a wild rice water quality standard until the commissioner of the Pollution Control Agency adopts rules to establish criteria for designating waters subject the standard.

A bill for an act relating to environment; prohibiting application of wild rice quality standards until certain conditions are met.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

Section 1. WILD RICE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS.

(a) Until the commissioner of the Pollution Control Agency adopts the rules to establish criteria for designating waters subject to a wild rice water quality standard as required under Laws 2011, First Special Session chapter 2, article 4, section 32, paragraph (b), and adopts the rule as required under Laws 2011, First Special Session chapter 2, article 4, section 32, paragraph (a), designating waters containing natural beds of wild rice that are subject to a wild rice water quality standard and designating the specific times of year during which the standard applies, the commissioner shall not:

(1) apply the wild rice water quality standard for sulfate in class 4A waters to any waters, including incorporating the standard or any requirements based on the standard within any permits, compliance schedules, orders, or other control documents; or

(2) list waters containing natural beds of wild rice as impaired for sulfate under section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, United States Code, title 33, section 1313.

(b) For the purposes of this section, "waters containing natural beds of wild rice" has the meaning given in Laws 2011, First Special Session chapter 2, article 4, section 32, paragraph (b).

Here's the language of HF853 (Wild rice water quality standard application prohibited until conditions are met) which has been referred to the Mining and Outdoor Wrecks committee:

A bill for an act relating to environment; prohibiting application of wild rice water quality standards until certain conditions are met.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

Section 1. WILD RICE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS.

(a) Until the commissioner of the Pollution Control Agency adopts the rules required under Laws 2011, First Special Session chapter 2, article 4, section 32, designating waters containing natural beds of wild rice that are subject to wild rice water quality standards, the commissioner shall not:

(1) apply the wild rice water quality standard for sulfate in class 4A waters to any waters, including incorporating the standard or any requirements based on the standard within any permits, compliance schedules, orders, or other control documents; or

(2) list waters containing natural beds of wild rice as impaired for sulfate under section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, United States Code, title 33, section 1313.

(b) For the purposes of this section, "waters containing natural beds of wild rice" has the meaning given in Laws 2011, First Special Session chapter 2, article 4, section 32, paragraph (b).

The bill would prohibit the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency from listing wild rice waters and applying the state's 40-year-old sulfate standard for wild rice until that standard is upheld by a current scientific review and re-adopted by the agency.

The bill specifically prevents the PCA from including the 10 parts-per-million sulfate standard to protect wild rice in any industrial permit issued until the ongoing sulfate study and reassessment is complete.

The PCA is nearing the end of a multiyear effort to determine whether the sulfate standard is needed to protect wild rice and, if so, what lakes and rivers the standard should apply to.

Northern Minnesota lawmakers have complained in recent weeks that the PCA has been including the sulfate standard in draft permits for mining companies even though the evaluation of the standard, ordered by lawmakers in 2011, is not yet complete.

Some mining industry leaders recently told Iron Range lawmakers that their ability to compete with a glut of cheap, foreign iron ore and finished steel could be compromised if Minnesota enforces the sulfate standard.

But Steve Morse, executive director of the Minnesota Environmental Partnership, said the bill is an end run around scientific review of wild rice protections. Similar legislation proposed in 2011 was panned by the federal Environmental Protection Agency as a legislative overreach and a likely violation of the federal Clean Water Act. Lawmakers can't simply undo water quality regulations already adopted under the act, it was noted.

"This legislation would roll back current water quality standards,'' Morse said in a statement. "We think our wild rice and our water deserve better — rules based on fact, not suspended through power politics. Our wild rice legacy depends on it." . . . .

We'll have more about this story as it develops.

Screengrab: Wild rice harvester Winona LaDuke, an Anishinaabekwe (Ojibwe) enrolled member of the Mississippi Band Anishinaabeg who lives and works on the White Earth Reservations, testified against the bill.

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:

Email subscribers can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen at gmail.com as recipient.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals has rejected a challenge to the Lake Mille Lacs fishing regulations by a group of local residents and resort owners.

The court ruled Tuesday against a suit filed by Save Mille Lacs Sportsfishing challenging the validity of fishing rules imposed by the Department of Natural Resources last year. Among those rules was a night fishing ban, a two-fish walleye limit and a restriction allowing anglers to only keep walleyes between 18 and 20 inches.

Erick Kaardal, a Minneapolis attorney for the Mille Lacs group, argued that the DNR hadn’t considered the 1998 constitutional amendment ensuring Minnesotans’ right to hunt and fish when it developed the fishing regulations. The court agreed the DNR didn’t state on the record that it considered the amendment before adopting the fishing regulations, but the three-judge panel said it believed the agency considered the amendment’s objective.

Besides, the court argued, the DNR’s failure to cite or consider the amendment doesn’t affect the validity of the regulations. . . .

Said Chris Niskanen, DNR communications director: “It’s clear the court felt we were following our statutory authority. The agency is dedicated to preserving the values set forth in the constitutional amendment, and that means using good science to set the fishing limits.”

Kaardal said his group doesn’t plan to appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court, and will instead work to get the Legislature to pass a law requiring the DNR to consider, in writing, the constitutional amendment when it makes rules and regulations. Such a bill already has been introduced in the House. . . .

That bill is HF 395, authored by freshman legislator Dale Lueck, an Aitkin Republican who serves as Vice-Chair of the Mining and Outdoor Recreation Committee. It was pulled from consideration by the committee in Tuesday's meeting. From the committee's page today:

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

2:45 PM

Room: 10 State Office Building

Chair: Rep. Tom Hackbarth

Agenda:

If you would like to testify on HF 382, please e-mail Committee Legislative Assistant Claire Leiter at Claire.leiter@house.mn.

A yearly report detailing how much money the Department of Natural Resources spends managing fisheries in Lake Mille Lacs is the goal of a bill heard by the House Mining and Outdoor Recreation Policy Committee Tuesday.

HF382, which was laid over for possible inclusion in an omnibus bill and has no Senate companion [we found it in on the revisor's page], would direct the DNR to outline fisheries management costs related to the 1837 treaty giving the United States territory that had belonged to the Chippewa nation. In exchange, the Chippewa kept certain hunting and fishing privileges. These have been the cause of some controversy during the years, including a court case that culminated in a 1999 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of the Chippewa.

Rep. Sondra Erickson (R-Princeton), who sponsors HF382 and represents a portion of Lake Mille Lacs, told members she is asked frequently by her constituents about the cost of managing the lake’s fisheries, but the last time the DNR had reported these costs to her was 10 years ago and the amount was over $1 million.

“This is a bill about transparency and accountability,” Erickson said.

With the challenges brought by the decline in walleye population on Lake Mille Lacs and the ongoing regulatory response to those issues, Erickson said her bill would “preserve the integrity” all state agencies should have. She also offered an amendment, which was adopted, that would make the report available on the DNR’s website.

“Can’t we just get this information without having to pass a law,” he said. “It seems like the DNR should be forthcoming and should be very willing to provide information.”

Erickson said she preferred not to legislate the issue and hoped the bill would begin a discussion that propelled the DNR to begin producing the report.

Don Pereira, DNR fisheries chief, told the committee it shouldn’t be difficult for the agency to provide the data but that there would be a fiscal impact and the DNR “will probably have to proceed to do a fiscal note if this bill passes and we’re required to make this report.”

There's a lot of discussion starting here, but as with so much the new Republican majority in the Minnesota House wants, there's not much talk about the cost of these agendas.

Photo: A walleye. Something's fishy about these arguments and it's probably not the DNR.

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:

Jan 28, 2015

Representative Steve Green (R-Fosston) is an enrolled member of the White Earth Band of Ojibwe, or Gaa-waabaabiganikaag Anishinaabeg, but he's having nothing to do with a proposal the nation submitted to the Outdoor Heritage Fund.

The council that reviews and approves proposals included the nation's request in its recommendations to the Minnesota House Environment and Natural Resources Policy and Finance Committee today, but an amendment Green submitted removing the tribe's request passed on a roll call vote.

DFL Representative David Dill joined the Republican majority on the committee in voting down the proposal.

The House Environment and Natural Resources Policy and Finance Committee approved legislation Wednesday that would appropriate just over $100 million from the Outdoor Heritage Fund for 34 proposed projects around the state.

But the committee also approved an amendment that at least one member believes could jeopardize the entire bill.

Sponsored by Rep. Denny McNamara (R-Hastings), HF181 passed 12-9 on a partisan roll-call vote after an amendment offered by Rep. Steve Green (R-Fosston) was approved that would eliminate funding for a project that would have provided almost $2.19 million for the White Earth Nation to acquire nearly 2,000 acres of land in northern Minnesota.

The White Earth Nation seeks to acquire land along the Wild Rice River and its tributaries for wildlife habitat protection. It said the matter was of some urgency because the current owner of the property Potlach Corp., a lumber company based in Washington state, is actively marketing it.

Green opposed the acquisition of the land because it would then no longer be subject to local property taxes in an area that he said was already “tax poor” and needed the revenue.

However, Rep. John Persell (DFL-Bemidji) took issue with the amendment, telling the committee he had been part of a restoration project to clean up a body of water in the area polluted by a chicken farm in the 1960s and 70s.

“There’s several million dollars of rice growing up there,” Persell said. “My take on this is White Earth is trying to protect the resource. … You have to be White Earth to rice on this lake, so it’s theirs to protect for themselves and the economic benefit that those couple million pounds of rice brings about.”

Jun 20, 2014

“Right now the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) is pushing what they call a dish rule, in order to gain more control of water and where it runs off from,” he [Bill Kuisle, endorsed Republican lieutenant governor candidate] said, also indicating that rising property tax rates for ag land is the most important issue for farmers. “I’ve been working with a couple of different farm groups to make sure that doesn’t happen.”

We googled and checked Nexis for "dish rule" and didn't come up with much, but think that Kuisle is spouting anti-water rule talking points from the Farm Bureau and similar groups. The Hill takes a look at the criticism here of the “Waters of the United States” rule to clarify regulations governing which bodies of water fall under federal jurisdiction and permitting requirements.

You’d never know from this overheated rhetoric that the proposal would leave fewer waters protected than was the case under President Reagan or that many tributary streams had been protected against pollution by federal law since William McKinley was president in 1899.

Much of this over-the-top criticism has come from oft-cited polluters, like the mining industry. Yet, some of the most strident charges have come from agribusiness interests. One writer declared, “The 370-page rule may as well be written in farmers’ blood.” The irony is that, thanks to numerous exemptions in the law and the regulations, agriculture is actually the least regulated of any sector. But no doubt some polluters are happy to see the powerful farm lobby, well, carrying water for them.

The comment period for the new proposal will close in October, but some in Congress aren’t waiting. They’re already offering legislation to block the initiative, riding this flood of misinformation. So let’s part the waters of myth and get down to the truth.

• Claim: The American Farm Bureau Federation tweets that the proposal “gives the fed gov control over all farming and land use.”

• Truth: The clean water safeguards explicitly exempt irrigated areas, farm ponds and dozens of other agricultural practices. They also reduce coverage of “ditches,” a favorite Farm Bureau talking point.

• Claim: The Farm Bureau says certain permitting exemptions for agriculture apply only to land that has been continually farmed since 1977.

• Truth: This is simply wrong. There is no 1977 trigger date for the exemptions, and they are available to anyone engaged in “normal farming,” which allows for crop rotations, fallow fields and other practices that may vary over time.

There's more--check it out at The Hill.

Maybe Kuisle meant "ditch rule" or "Ditch the Rule," the slogan used by some ag groups to instill fear of the clarification.

But there's more in the Globe:

Added Kuisle later: “What you’ve seen over the last 30 or 40 years — and probably accelerated in the last 10 or 15 years — is more regulation coming in that (road construction) industry, with the need for storm retention ponds and wetlands placements. … We couldn’t have built I-90 with today’s rules and regulations.

“We need to back up and see what’s really needed, and not over-regulate and not build roads because of the prices we’re seeing."

In the study, "Addressing the Quiet Crisis", Richard F. Weingroff of the Federal Highway Administration's Office of Infrastructure examines the origins and implications of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 on the interstate system, concluding:

. . .The program and the reputation of road builders "were tarnished." After initial resistance, the road builders realized that NEPA was not innocuous. With "grudging reluctance," the highway community came to see that "NEPA, the whole elevation of environmental consciousness, has been a positive influence on the FHWA and on our program." Dr. Larson continued:

Yes, it was inconvenient. Yes, it slows things up. And yes, it costs more. But I firmly believe the results are worth it. In the years since NEPA, we have built hundreds of highway projects that are "good neighbors." Some people still consider highways the "route" of all evil, but to a large extent NEPA, and the FHWA's implementation of it, have helped to restore a more favorable public impression and acceptance of our work.

The change in how the highway community went about its business, "while initially unsettling has proved to be profound and positive." [Larson, Thomas D., "Earth Day-More Than a Second Thought," Administrator's Note, Vol. I, Note 32, April 20, 1990, unpublished].

And yes, I-90 was completed.

As for Kuisle's scorn of storm retention ponds and "wetlands placements," we are left simply shaking our head. After this week's record-busitng rainfall and flooding, we have to wonder about a guy who opposes the cost of these deluge mitigation measures. The last thing lakes, rivers and creeks needed was an additional rush of water from a road or drained wetland upstream, much less the nutrients and chemicals their absence would add to the lakes, rivers and Gulf of Mexico.

Moreover, we're curious why wet detentions ponds, which have been used widely across the United States for many years, are suddenly an emblem of Big Government, rather than a sensible best management practice that helps keep an upstream road's run-off out of the downstream neighbor's basement, while detering flooding ditches and creeks from widening and hauling off farmers' fields.

When stormwater drains off a construction site, it carries sediment and other pollutants that harm lakes, streams and wetlands. According to the 1996 National Water Quality Inventory, stormwater runoff is a leading source of water pollution. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that 20 to 150 tons of soil per acre is lost every year to stormwater runoff from construction sites.

Many studies indicate that controlling erosion can significantly reduce the amount of sedimentation and other pollutants transported by runoff from construction sites. To keep Minnesota’s valuable water resources clean the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) issues permits to construction site owners and their operators to prevent stormwater pollution during and after construction.

The Clean Water Act was passed in 1972.

Curiously, while in the House, Kuisle favored borrowing for road construction, while cutting costs on routine maintenance. MPR reported in 2003:

. . .Minnesota would also get an advance of federal transportation money, for a total infusion of up to $900 million. Rep. Al Juhnke, DFL-Willmar, says the state will pay more than $200 million in interest on the bonds, which will reduce money available for transportation in the future.

"This is borrowed money, borrowed time, borrowed for our roads, and it's a big giant step to nowhere," says Juhnke.

The bonds will be paid for with savings from cuts to MnDOT for road maintenance and other unspecified areas.

One wonders if this character is the guy who took "conserve" out of conservative.

Photo: An example of a vegetated buffer adjacent to a construction site. Via MPCA.

<

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:

Jun 10, 2014

This post is part of a Summer Reading series about environmental policy in Minnesota at Bluestem Prairie. The series is indended to remind progressive voters that there's more to a discussion of environmental policy than just the debate over sulfide mining in northeast Minnesota.

by Mary Turck

“When I think about a groundwater aquifer, I think of a giant milkshake glass,” Arizona law professor Robert Glennon told MPR. “And when I think about a well, I think about that well as a straw in the glass. “

In Minnesota, we might have too many straws in the glass. Farm irrigation and mining are two obvious straws in the glass. Another is the lawn sprinkling system that runs on a timer, even when it’s raining. Even the water wasted by leaving the faucet running while washing dishes or brushing teeth adds up.

MPR’s Dan Kraker, reporting from Tucson, describes their water crisis of 40 years ago, and smart solutions since then — legislation, education, enforcement, but most of all a change in attitude to “a new water conservation ethic.” Among the specifics: Tucson Water’s on-the-spot consultations for individual homeowners, higher prices for water beyond basic needs, requiring efficient toilets, discouraging front lawns and water-intensive plants.

Tucson’s result: declining water use, even as the population grows.

Arizona is drier than Minnesota, but we are developing water problems, too. Both quantity and quality matter in Minnesota water policy: dropping groundwater levels and contamination of lakes, rivers and groundwater.

“Even in the land of 10,000 lakes, water is no longer unlimited. Lakes shrink, groundwater drops, wells go dry or get contaminated. Some cities have to look harder for good municipal water or pay more to treat it. Twenty years ago these were isolated problems. But three-quarters of Minnesota’s residents get their water from aquifer-tapping wells, and today parts of the state seem to be on a path that is not sustainable.”

Irrigation is increasing in Minnesota. Decades ago, irrigation was mostly for dry land farming in other states. Now you can see irrigation systems across Minnesota fields. MPR found that irrigation is a major stress on ground water, and that a lot of it is off the books:

“Of roughly 1,200 crop irrigation wells drilled from 2008 to 2012, more than 200 likely are operating without a permit, a Minnesota Public Radio News investigation of public well records found. In addition, nearly 200 others operated without a permit until the past year or so.”

It’s not just corn — potatoes are a problem in Park Rapids, with water quantity issues complicated by nitrate pollution from irrigated crops.

Water use issues stretch across the country. The New York Times recent water-related stories include:

And that’s not even getting into the issues from significant “accidental” contamination, like the West Virginia toxic spill that left 300,000 people without drinkable water or the North Carolina coal ash spill or the still-lingering effects of the Exxon Valdez (Alaska) and the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

“As a general matter, far too few journalists around the country pay attention to water. Whereas major papers like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal throw multiple reporters at energy, the water beat doesn’t really exist, except at a handful of publications, and often as a forlorn subset of environmental or government coverage.”

One of the resources Galbraith cited is Circle of Blue, which has “an intense focus on water and its relationships to food, energy, and health,” and an international scope.

About this post:"Milkshakes and water policy" is crossposted with the permission of the author from Mary Turck's News Day blog. A native of rural Meeker County, where family members still farm, Turck is concluding a long stint as editor of the Twin Cities Daily Planet. Her career in journalism began when she was in high school, writing a weekly column for the Litchfield Independent Review.

Republican gubernatorial hopefuls Kurt Zellers and Dave Thompson want more coal and natural gas burnt, and they were not at all shy in speaking up about the issue at last night's Central Minnesota Tea Party meeting.

Both said . . . limiting government
support for renewable energy should be priorities for the state’s next
governor. . . .

Energy issues also were part of the event. Both candidates said
greater use of carbon-emitting fuels such as coal and natural gas should
be encouraged, in lieu of state support for renewable sources such as
wind or solar power.

“It might make us feel good to pass windmill legislation, even though it’s killing bald eagles,” Zellers said.

the small group of scientists who opposed the consensus
on warming proceeded in the manner of lawyers, considering nothing that
would not bolster their case, and publishing mostly in pamphlets, books,
and newspapers supported by conservative interests. At some point they
were no longer skeptics — people who would try to see every side of a
case — but deniers, that is, people whose only interest was in casting
doubt upon what other scientists agreed was true.

He adds: “Deniers of the scientific consensus avoided normal scientific discourse and resorted to ad hominem attacks that cast doubt on the entire scientific community — while disrupting the lives of some researchers.”

The emergence of a self-sustaining climate change denial movement
requires a deeper explanation, though. Deep pockets and corporate
backing alone cannot create a social movement. Nor can financial motive
alone explain how vicious the attacks on climate scientists have become.
Rather, like creationism, climate change denial has spread and
established itself in the political discourse by creating a perception
of conflict. Instead of the religious conflict alleged by creationists,
however, climate change deniers allege a conflict of economic and
political ideologies. Historians and public opinion researchers like Aaron McCright and Riley Dunlap
have found this conflict is perceived to exist between free market
capitalism and a science supposedly subverted by a communist, and even
fascist, ideology disguised as environmentalism. This framing is
entwined deeply in the rhetoric and psychology of movement conservatism.

. . .Through the 2000s, leading conservatives like Governors Romney and
Pawlenty and former Speaker Gingrich recognized the threat posed by
climate change, proposing or enacting policies to limit that danger. In
the early years of the Obama administration, conservative Senators
McCain, Graham, and Lieberman joined liberal Senators Kerry and Boxer in crafting cap-and-trade legislation that would fight climate change.

But by the summer of 2010, a shift in elite conservative opinion was
apparent. In October 2009, Senator Graham had co-authored a New York Times
op-ed with Senator Kerry, declaring, “we agree that climate change is
real and threatens our economy and national security … many scientists
warn that failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will lead to global
instability and poverty that could put our nation at risk.” By June
2010, however, he abandoned the cap-and-trade plan,
explaining to reporters: “The science about global warming has changed.
… I think they’ve oversold this stuff, quite frankly. I think they’ve
been alarmist and the science is in question. … The whole movement has
taken a giant step backward.”

The 2012 Republican nomination battle saw Romney, Gingrich, and
Pawlenty all disavow their past support for climate science and climate
protection. In one debate, Pawlenty was challenged on his climate change
efforts as head of the National Governors Association and governor of
Minnesota, and replied:
“It was a mistake, and I’m sorry … You’re going to have a few clunkers
on your record, and we all do, and that’s one of mine. … I made a
mistake.” . . .

Zellers' political shift on clean energy

Zellers appears to be in this category of unwavering principled politicians. His coal love is relatively new. In a January 11, 2008 op-ed column archived on his official Minnesota House legislator's page, OP/ED COLUMN LEGISLATIVE UPDATE: ENERGY, Zellers wrote:

Renewable Energy Standards
Minnesota has been a national leader for many years in the area of
renewable energy, and this year the legislature passed, and the Governor
signed into law, the highest renewable energy standards in the nation.

These New renewable energy objectives set standards for electric
utilities to supply a certain percentage of their energy from renewable
sources such as wind, biomass, landfill gas, anaerobic digesters, solar
and others. All electric utilities will be required to achieve a
standard of 25% by 2025. Xcel Energy must achieve 30% by 2020 with 25%
wind energy and 5% coming from other renewable sources. . . .

Another source of renewable energy the state is putting money into is
wind energy. The legislature did this by establishing then Rural Wind
Development Revolving Loan fund to enhance wind energy development in
Minnesota. You can already see some of the progress of this in southern
and western Minnesota. If you drive on I-90 you can see wind farms
being built. Also many school districts around the state are looking
into building wind mills to power the school building and provide extra
revenue by selling the extra energy to the power companies. . . .

Conclusion
These are just a few of the major programs and bills that were passed
during this last legislative session to help make Minnesota energy
independent. Looking at these options will assist Minnesota in being a
leader and spur economic growth across the state by bringing in new
business opportunities. . . .

That is so 2008.

Crocodile tears for wildlife

No longer. Bluestem hopes Zellers' new concern for wildlife will provoke renewed scrutiny of all "takings" permits that allow for destruction of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. Surely this concern isn't only restricted to the wind industry.

After all, the only Republican to support HF 425, Rick Hansen's bill to fund scientific and natural area and wellhead easement protection area acquisition near frac sand mines, withdrew his name after four days.

Jun 26, 2013

Released on the heels of heavy rainfall across the state, the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) released the findings of its study
of nitrogen in surface waters today, right around the time that the Supreme Court released its landmark decision repealing the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.

It's no wonder that coverage of the study--which is fairly damning about the impact of commercial fertilizer used in production crop agriculture--was lost in the applause.

But the study is worth paying attention to, because it addresses the sources of Minnesota’s contribution to the Gulf of Mexico’s hypoxia issue--that dead zone we keep hearing about. But the problem isn't just harming the Gulf, but our own drinking water and fish habitat.

. . .The report says if farmers optimized
standard best management practices, they could reduce nitrogen
pollution by up to 35 percent. The practices include applying
fertilizer at the optimal time and in optimal amounts, planting
perennials along streams, treating tile drainage waters, planting cover
crops in the fall, and converting marginal land to perennial vegetation.
But national groups working on the dead zone problem in the Gulf of
Mexico say reductions closer to 45 percent are needed.

Several environmental groups hailed
the report as an important step toward cleaner water. But Whitney
Clark, executive director of Friends of the Mississippi River, said the
report makes it clear than current approaches are not working.

"The state appears to have committed
itself to the voluntary approach," he said, "and many of us have been
arguing that we've tried voluntary approaches since the Great
Depression, and current practices don't work."

Nitrogen contamination in the southern half of
Minnesota is so severe that 27 percent of the state’s lakes and rivers
could not be used as drinking water, according to a new and unexpectedly
blunt assessment of the state’s most prevalent form of water pollution.

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) said Wednesday that, overall, 41 percent of Minnesota’s streams
and lakes have excessive nitrogen, all of them in the state’s southern
and central regions. The nutrient, which is used as fertilizer in
agriculture and comes from wastewater treatment plants, can be toxic to
fish and other forms of aquatic life. It is a primary cause of the vast
oxygen-depleted area in the Gulf of Mexico known as the dead zone.

Even ambitious efforts could reduce
nitrogen runoff by less than a third — and that would cost hundreds of
millions of dollars, primarily in the agricultural regions of the state
that contribute 70 percent of the total load, according to the MPCA’s report.

Check out both stories and read the report. It's worth the effort in order to understand that the talking points distributed by some ag groups are simply hollow air.

May 17, 2013

Bluestem has no idea whether the Alexandria Lakes Area Tea Party has sought tax-free status, but if it has, its latest project will pose no questions about the application. Their sanity, perhaps.

According to a PDF posted on the group's website, the conservatives have launched a worldwide prayer request asking people everywhere to pray for the conversion of billionaire hedge fund manager George Soros to Christianity. To pray--"perhaps more than once a day":

The Alexandria Lakes Area Tea Party (ALATP), Alexandria, MN, would like to invite you to participate in a world-wide prayer campaign for the conversion of George Soros from atheism to Christianity. Please say a prayer everyday for the conversion of his soul—in fact, perhaps more than once a day. This prayer campaign must be done to the Glory of God--not to glorify the tea party movement.

We are asking that you spread this message to anyone on your contact list via Email, Facebook, Twitter, and the like. We are hoping that by midsummer, the whole world will be praying for Mr. Soros.

A Jew born in Hungary, Soros and his family managed to escape extermination by Nazis in World War II by assuming false identities and hiding, according to his website. He is an atheist who "believes that people of faith and faith communities contribute to the
public’s understanding of pressing social issues and often add a
principled, moral aspect to debates that are too often dominated by
politicians, statistics and polling," a FAQ on his religion notes.

Yes, this is the place that elected and re-elected Mary Franson to the state legislature. The PDF is embedded below.

May 06, 2013

Growing up in the suburbs of Chicago, Caitlin Pawlowski came to Detroit Lakes to vacation at Fair Hills Resort every summer. After graduating from Ohio State University in 2007 with a degree in finance, Pawlowski spent a year working in New Jersey.

Then, in 2009, she was offered a job at Fair Hills.

"I jumped at the chance to move to Minnesota," Pawlowski, the resort'sHuman Resources/Front Desk Manager, wrote in an email interview. "I love the lakes country and
moving here was a dream come true. The life we have built in Detroit
Lakes is a dream come true."

"Minnesota is my home," she added, noting that she appreciates Minnesota values like "family, love, acceptance and freedom."

One cloud darkens the sunny skies of her good life in Minnesota: the inability to marry the love of her life, her fiance. "Why can I not commit my life to another woman and enjoy the same
marriage benefits that my fellow heterosexual citizens enjoy?" she asks. "I didn't
choose to love my fiancé, my love for her developed without a choice."

Pawlowski believes that the freedom to marry the person she loves is a basic human right. "Marriage and the benefits of marriage is a basic human right that should
not be denied to anyone. Marriage is a commitment that should be not
withheld from anyone. Love and commitment between any two people at its
basis is the same among all couples regardless of gender," she said. "Marriage equality is important because love is blind and cannot be stopped."

The 27-year-old transplant thinks that her state representative, Paul Marquart (DFL-Dilworth) should vote to move HF1054,the Clark marriage equality bill, forward when it is heard in the House Ways and Means Committee today, and to vote yes when the bill is brought to the floor of the Minnesota House.

"Passing this bill will strengthen Minnesota's right to be called a great
state," she wrote. "It will show the nation that Minnesota is on the front line of
changing history. It will show that Minnesota is not afraid to do the
right thing. Minnesota will be a state filled with free, happy and
open-minded citizens."

"Our nation was built upon freedom for all," she added. "By not passing the bill,
only some have marriage freedom while others do not. To vote no is to
deny freedom for all. Why not? I cannot come up with a negative
outcome to passing this bill."

If Pawlowski had a chance to sit down with opponents of the bill, she'd start by listening to their explanations for their resistance to allowing her to marry the woman she loves. "I would be respectful and listen," she wrote. "I would share my story. I would
ask how love between two people can be discriminated against. I would
ask how marriage equality could be threatening."

"We lead a normal, common, boring, non-threatening life," she notes. "Why can I not
legally marry her and call her my wife and share all the benefits?"

Photo: Caitlin Pawlowski, her fiance G., and one of their two dogs, enjoying the good life in Minnesota's lake country.

This original story is underwritten by a sponsorship by Minnesotans United for All Families.

As a winter of heavy snowfall and freezing
rain gives way to warming temperatures, rapid melting and potential for
flooding pose challenges for manure management among the more than
25,000 livestock farms in Minnesota. Farmers who spread solid manure
during winter must ensure that it doesn’t run off with rapid snowmelt
flowing to ditches, streams and other waters.

Manure-contaminated runoff not only threatens water quality, it
reduces the value of manure as a crop nutrient. If possible, farmers
should refrain from spreading manure during periods of rapid melt. This
may be even more important in some areas this year because of frozen
snow conditions. In January and February the snow was saturated by rain,
and then froze. This prevents surface-applied manure from soaking in to
the soil, and more susceptible to runoff.. . .

Mar 23, 2013

Governor Mark Dayton may have come out against a one-year moratorium on industrial sand mining while a Generic Environmental Impact Statement is conducted, but a story by Stephanie Hemphill at Minnesota Public Radio illustrates why grassroots citizen groups in Southeastern Minnesota are asking for both.

. . .The EQB is a multi-agency oversight
body that received a petition to do an in-depth study of the possible
environmental effects of frac sand mining. . . .

That kind of study would take
several years and cost a lot of money. In the meantime, the agency has
produced a 90-page report that summarizes the issues.

So far the questions outnumber the
answers regarding possible impacts on the environment, the economy and
local communities, said EQB planner Jeff Smyser.

One of those questions involves a very scary thing: sinkholes. Probably not Florida-scale sinkholes--and the water quality concerns that are related to sinkhole-producing karst geology are a whole lot more vexsome:

The report includes . . .maps of
southeastern Minnesota's unusual geology, known as karst geology, where
rich deposits of silica sand are found. That makes it tricky to predict
underground water flows, Smyser said. The limestone bedrock easily
creates sinkholes and causes unpredictable groundwater flows.

"It's kind of difficult to know
where the water's going to go, just what effects use of groundwater,
discharge of processing water is going to have because of that karst
geology out there," he said. "So that's a real tricky question that's
real hard to answer at this point."

In fact, Bluestem hopes you'll don your tinfoil hat and find somewhere as far away from the Minnesota River Basin as possible.

But if you're like the farmers, land owners, river rats and county commissioners up and down the river who've been working to make sure that Lake Pepin doesn't silt up--and dirt stays in your own pasture or field like any sane property owner would desire--the group's new Local Resource Management Scorecard is pretty nifty, packed with helpful information:

To view aggregate results from the counties in the Minnesota River Basin or to read about how the categories we chose relate to sediment, please visit our County Evaluation Overview Page. If you live in the Minnesota River Basin (in blue) you can click on your county . . .! The map also features the overlapping watersheds for every county in Minnesota; hover over your county to see.

...The mission of the Lake Pepin Legacy Alliance in developing this scorecard is to:

1) Recognize county successes in remediation of sedimentation and compliance with state and local regulations and best practices.

2) Recognize accountability in monitoring and enforcement of regulation.

3) Identify county specific obstacles to reducing soil erosion and keeping water on the land.

4) Identify specific opportunities and solutions to address these obstacles.

5) Encourage cooperation and collaboration among local units of government to plan and address the unifying water quality issues of the Minnesota River Basin, where appropriate.

6) Provide a means for counties to more easily share information on their processes, funding sources, success rates, and areas in need of attention.

Go check out the scorecard, which is chock-full of great information. Here's a video from the Alliance with more information about the project: